The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service based on his actions of manhandling the branch manager and hurling abuses, in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Rajiv Shakdher, J

1. This is a writ petition directed against the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dated 15.07.1996. By virtue of the said award, the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of respondent no.2 bank, i.e., the Management. The reference made by the Central Government to the Tribunal was whether the action of respondent no.2 bank, in dismissing the petitioner from service was justified or not, and if not, what relief the workman was entitled to.

2. This reference arose in the background of the following brief facts.

2.1 The petitioner was initially with the Indian Army. The petitioner joined respondent no.2 bank, on 30.12.1978, as a typist. The petitioner’s cadre was changed to that of a clerk, whereupon he was posted with the Chandni Chowk branch, located at Delhi of respondent no.2 bank.

2.2 It appears, that on 24.07.1985, transfer orders were issued to the petitioner for his transfer to Dhansa branch.

2.3 Evidently, the petitioner was not happy with the transfer. The service of the transfer order led to consternation. As a matter of fact, a tense situation developed, which spilled over to the next day, which was 25.07.1985. The fracas resulted in the manager of the Chandni Chowk branch, one, Mr R.N. Mehrotra being hit on the head near the right eye. There were also allegations of the manager’s hair being pulled etc.

2.4 It is in this background that a chargesheet-cum-suspension letter dated 27.07.1985, was served on the petitioner, on 31.07.1985. The petitioner was given an opportunity to file a reply to the aforesaid chargesheet-cum-suspension letter, which he did, on 01.08.1985. By an order dated 03.08.1985, a departmental inquiry was ordered and an inquiry officer was appointed.

2.5 The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 25.08.1986. Based on the report a show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority seeking explanation from the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. To the said show cause notice a reply was furnished by the petitioner. Since the disciplinary authority was not persuaded by the reply filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 12.12.1986, penalty of dismissal from service, was imposed on the petitioner.

2.6 The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal with the appellate authority. However, the said appeal met the same fate and, the appellate authority, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.02.1987.

3. As indicated above, it is in this background that a reference was made by the appropriate government to the Tribunal. This reference was made on 15.05.1989. The Tribunal vide the impugned award answered the reference in favour of respondent no.2 bank, i.e., the Management.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, arguments were advanced by Mr G.D. Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Piyush Sharma, while on behalf of respondent no.2 bank, submissions have been made by Mr Jagat Arora, assisted by Mr Rajat Arora.

5. Mr Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has made extensive submissions. The broad and basic submissions are as follows:

(i) That defence had cited four witnesses and none of the four witnesses claimed that any commotion occurred within the bank premises either on 24th and 25th July, 1985. He submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner vis-à-vis his having manhandled the branch manager is not borne out from the testimony of the witnesses cited by the petitioner.

(ii) The witnesses, i.e., Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), i.e., the branch manager and, the other officer of respondent no.2, i.e., Mr S.K. Chauhan (MW-6), who deposed to the effect that the petitioner had manhandled the branch manager Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), were inimical to the petitioner and, hence, their testimonies cannot be relied upon.

(iii) The report of the constable Sh. Suresh Chand, who arrived at the site, shows that no injury was caused to Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), i.e., the branch manager, as alleged or at